Florida Family Association wishes American Muslims a Hateful Christmas

OMG TERRURISTS!

Jezebel writes that American home-improvement chain Lowes has pulled its advertising from TLC's reality show All-American Muslim after complaints from the Florida Family Association.

According to TLC's online preview:

"All-American Muslim follows the daily lives of five American Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan, one of the most established and largest concentrations of American Muslims in the country. Each episode offers an intimate look at customs and celebrations, as well as misconceptions, conflicts, and differences these families face outside and within their own community."

 In other words, it is offering a peek beyond the xenophobia, to portray the diverse people behind the faith.

This infuriates the Florida Family Association, who sent out an alert to all their members to e-mail TLC with complaints:

"The Learning Channel's new show All-American Muslim is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law.  The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish."

My. Oh. My. Can't you just feel the love of Jesus Christ throbbing in their veins? The FFA's mission statement is to "educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values." (Apparently, "love thy neighbour" ain't one of these.)

Lowe's gave the lamest excuse ever for giving in to fundamentalist pressure:

"Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance."

Way to go, asshats. Spineless and callous is no way for a brand to go through life.

Predictably, some public figures are calling for a boycott of the cowardly brand, including Democratic Senator Ted Lieu, who is calling for a Christmas boycott of Lowe's. He says, "The show is about what it's like to be a Muslim in America, and it touches on the discrimination they sometimes face. And that kind of discrimination is exactly what's happening here with Lowe's."

LOTS of room for improvement in this brand.

Related: Buzzfeed's 25 Dumbest Comments On Lowe's Facebook Page About “All-American Muslim”

H&M and the curious case of the cyborg models

Look at these two models, from the H&M online catalogue:

Here are three more:

Notice anything... odd?

According to Jezebel, "The bodies of most of the models H&M features on its website are computer-generated and 'completely virtual,' the company has admitted. H&M designs a body that can better display clothes made for humans than humans can, then 'dresses' it by drawing on its clothes, and digitally pastes on the heads of real women in post-production."

In other words, they're just digital paper dolls. Pick a skin tone, add an outfit and photoshop in a real head. Why a real head? Well, humans have pretty fine-tuned facial recognition software in their heads. We tend to be freaked out by fake faces that are too close for comfort, pushing us into the uncanny valley.

You will notice however, on this pose, that they re-use the same headshot over and over again as well.

And in case you're wondering, they have cyborg male models too:

What do you think of this tactic? Its advantage is consistency in showing off the clothes; after all, models are supposed to be mannequins. Plus if they were a little more overt about it, with a disclaimer that "models bodies are computer generated — do not try this at home" then maybe it would help to overcome the whole dysmorphia and eating disorder issue with both models and their followers.

After all, there was a time when fashion was usually sold by illustration.

Is this any different? I'd love to hear your opinions. (Well, those of most of you anyway.)

OB apologizes to me personally, gives me a tampon coupon

Awww, thanks guys. You really shouldn't have.

According to Jezebel, this is a campaign by OB to try to win back customers in Canada after a supply disruption took the tiny tampons off the market last year. Jez comments, "For some reason, O.B. is only apologizing to Canadians at the moment" — well, duh! Effusive apology is such a Canadian thing to do.

And this is totally over the top. You enter your name in their interactive site, and this mopey man sings the hygienic product's apology to you as your name is tattooed on his arm, written in rose petals, and spread across the sky.

I'm touched, really. Deep in my... umm... where do you put those things again?

F'd Ad Fridays: Watching adult virgins talk about sex is even more awkward than you would imagine

This is a trailer for "Virgin Diaries", a new reality show coming at you from TLC. The network claims it is not making fun of these poor saps. They leave that up to the viewers.






Via Jezebel

F'd Ad Fridays: It's never too early to teach your daughter to whore

Jezebel reports that these thong underpants were part of the Kmart Girl Xpress line of clothing that markets itself to tweens in Australia:

They have since been taken of the shelves.

F'd Ad Fridays: A woman's heart, according to some Victorian dude who got dumped

click to enlarge

"Pyramids of fashion" may be my newest favourite euphemism.

Thanks to Jezebel for an awesome find.

Amber Rose for gross flavoured vodka

Amber Rose is a model who has dated Kanye West and done ads for Louis Vuitton. Whatever you think those two facts say about her taste, this current campaign for flavoured vodka really makes me question it.

Marshmallow? Whipped Cream? While I realize that flavouring vodka is an old tradition (or so says Absolut), I'm not sure that these kid-friendly flavours are what the old country forefathers had in mind.

At least she didn't front for Nut Liquor.

Via Jezebel

F'd ad Fridays: New dress turns invisible when you get excited

This high-tech dress by Studio Roosegaarde could bring a whole new meaning to "wardrobe malfunction".



Here's the explanation:

INTIMACY is a fashion project exploring the relation between intimacy and technology. Its high-tech garments entitled 'Intimacy White' and 'Intimacy Black' are made out of opaque smart e-foils that become increasingly transparent based on close and personal encounters with people. 

Social interactions determine the garmentsʼ level of transparency, creating a sensual play of disclosure. 

INTIMACY 2.0 features Studio Roosegaardeʼs new, wearable dresses composed of leather and smart e-foils which are perfect to wear on the red carpet. In response to the heartbeat of each person, INTIMACY 2.0 becomes more or less transparent. 

Currently Studio Roosegaarde is inviting haute couture designers to develop their own vision for the next INTIMACY. 

Specifications: 2010-2011. ʻBlackʼ and ʻWhiteʼ dresses, length 100cm, width 40 cm. Smart foils, wireless technologies, electronics, LEDs, copper and other media. 

Via Jezebel

F'd Ad Fridays: Stay classy, Ashley Madison

As always.

Via Jezebel

A modest proposal to rebrand Ohio's "Heart Beat Bill"

Jezebel shared this irritating ad from Ohio ProLife Action about the State's controversial Heart Beat Bill :



It's not just the low production values, awful script, and nasally voiceover that I find irksome. It's the missed opportunity.

If you want people to visualize a "busload of children" being killed every day the anti-abortion bill (which bans termination at about about 6 weeks from conception) is delayed, you need to do more than show a bunch of home movie shots. You need to move people.

After all, just getting people to see a 6-week-old human embryo as a child can be a bit of a stretch:

Especially since up to a third of conceptions miscarry—80% of them within the first 12 weeks. So even Mother Nature isn't onboard with your mission to "protect all innocent human life".

No, if we're going to get people to back this bill we need to give them something to get their hearts and fists pumping. Don't just show the busload of kids. Show them at the mercy of a psychopath bent on their destruction. And don't just promote a bill, give the thing some personality and have it kick psycho ass and literally save the day.

You know what I'm getting at here? This story has been told before. You know who else saved a whole busload of embryos — I mean, children — in a single day?

Dirty Goddamn Harry, that's who.

Here (new window) is how that PSA should have gone down.

You can call it the "Dirty Harry Bill". Or the "Do you feel a heartbeat, punk?" ... umm, Bill.

It's got everything the religious right likes:

• Clear-cut good and evil (okay, Harry's a racist and sexist who wants all criminals dead, but those are virtues in some circles).
• Guns. They love their guns.
• Awesome funky soundtrack. (Just tell them it's a new kind of "Baptist Gospel")
• Innocent victims.
• Clint. (Although he is no longer a Republican, he was then.)

I really think they should consider buying up this footage. Either that, or mitigate high abortion rates by providing youth with harm reduction based sex education and really easy access to contraceptives, as well as by addressing the fundamental socioeconomic problems behind unwanted pregnancy.

Nah, definitely Dirty Harry.

Tip via Jezebel.

F'd Ad Fridays: What a shitty Xmas gift

Jezebel says this is the "it toy" the the UK this Christmas. I think they left out a couple of consonants.

Making an ass of yourself in social media

So, Chapstick had this kind of lame idea for a customer engagement campaign on Facebook. The advertised it in the real world like this:

Seems pretty harmless to me, just a poorly shot slice of life that was supposed to resonate with the female audience.

But that's not how one blogger, Melissa Spiers (guest posting on ReelGirl) took it. She flew into a very angry rant about the fetishization of the woman's bum and the possibility that we were supposed to imagine the Chapstick shoved up it.

Here's a sample:

"But why would anyone visit my online world, anyway?  Don’t we go online to experience an alternate reality? Chapstick! Woman’s Ass!  Have you ever gone through a day without being bombarded with any sexist messages or images?  Some of them are right out there, nothing subliminal about them  – see exhibits A through Z on the Rap Lyrics floor.  Lost. Chapstick. Ass. Others try to be subtle and sneaky (please take the audio tour in the Museum of Advertising).  Unfortunately, the use of women’s bodies to sell everything from beer to books has become so pervasive that we almost don’t see it anymore.  Hey, I bet I know where the Chapstick is!"

She is, of course, fully entitled to be angry at advertising (and other pop culture content) for continuing to treat woman as sex objects to promote sales or sexy brand associations. I just didn't see it here. I saw the portrayal as an attempt at humour by showing the model in an awkward and inelegant position — one that I often see (especially) women make self-deprecating comments about when they find themselves accidentally so positioned in public. It never occurred to me to think that the Chapstick was in her rectum. Why would I?

Now, Chapstick could have easily defended its intent (if I got it right) and agreed to disagree with its detractors who (it cannot be stressed enough) they invited to "be heard" at the campaign Facebook page.

But foolishly, they deleted all negative comments. So Reel Girl set up a protest FB page where they display screencaps of user comments before deletion.

From Jezebel:

A company deleting comments from its own Facebook page isn't censorship — Chapstick has no obligation to provide a public forum, and users are free to take their complaints elsewhere, as they have done. And in the grand scheme of things, the ad that started the whole controversy isn't that offensive. What Chapstick is guilty of is really bad PR. When Dr. Pepper issued a much more objectionable ad, at least they allowed customers to sound off about it on their Facebook page. By deleting negative comments, Chapstick is sending the message that they can't handle criticism. And especially if you're encouraging people to use social media to talk about your brand, that's a stupid message to send.

Seriously, seriously dumb. You lose at social media, whoever manages the Chapstick page.

UPDATE: Digging way down on the page, I found some un-deleted comments:

I wonder if this will stay:

A Photoshop disaster in the House of Commons

This is a little off blog topic, but my last post regarded sex and politics, and this is too ridiculous not to share.

This is the official profile page for one of Canada's new MPs, Rathika Sitsabaiesan. The honourable member was elected in the riding of Scarborough—Rouge River on May 2, standing for the New Democratic Party.

Do you notice anything strange about her picture?

Let's blow it up a bit:

Contrarian reader Mark Austin thought it looked a little odd, and was able to find the original at OpenParliament (it has since also been replaced):

As a 29-year-old Millennial woman, The Honourable Ms. Sitsabaiesan probably felt the top she wore to her portrait sitting was just fine. It is fine, as a matter of fact, and no different than what any other woman would wear in a modern business situation.

But somebody thought otherwise. Whether she herself had second thoughts, or whether someone behind the scenes at the House of Commons had a moment of extreme prudishness, the completely awful photoshop cleavage-ectomy has now made the pages of Jezebel.

And that's far more embarrassing than seeing the modest bits of your Member of Parliament's breasts.

Nonetheless, I post this to mock prudishness and bad Photoshop—not the rookie MP, who has taken on a thankless job in public service that I would never want. I wish her and her colleagues the best of luck in the new session.

American Apparel's "Next Big Thing" is obviously not "growing a pair"

Last month, American Apparel impressed nobody when it launched it's "Next Big Thing" model search for plus-sized amateur porn fashion models.

But then it got good. Nancy Upton, a size 12 model with a wicked sense of humour, entered the following pictures in an attempt to lampoon the contest with the disclaimer, "my good friend Shannon Skloss came over to take some "booty-full" photos of me... but I just couldn't stop eating."

Nancy, in a public tribute to her awsomeness, won the contest by popular vote. But AA refused to crown her as their new booty queen. More than that, they responded with the following insufferable whine:

Dear Nancy Upton,

My name is Iris Alonzo and I am a Creative Director at American Apparel. Along with four other women, I conceived of the Next BIG Thing campaign for American Apparel. Firstly, we are very sorry that we offended you. Our only motive was to discover and celebrate the many beautiful XL women around the globe who enjoy our brand, and to promote the recent size additions to our collection. Nothing more, nothing less. We would also like to assure you that no one is getting fired over your stunt, as you expressed concern about in a recent interview. We are fortunate to have a great boss who trusts and believes in our instincts and ideas, and we are still very excited about all of our Next BIG Things and looking forward to meeting our new XL brand ambassadors.

It’s a shame that your project attempts to discredit the positive intentions of our challenge based on your personal distaste for our use of light-hearted language, and that “bootylicous” was too much for you to handle. While we may be a bit TOO inspired by Beyoncé, and do have a tendency to occasionally go pun-crazy, we try not to take ourselves too seriously around here. I wonder if you had taken just a moment to imagine that this campaign could actually be well intentioned, and that my team and I are not out to offend and insult women, would you have still behaved in the same way, mocking the confident and excited participants who put themselves out there? Maybe you’ll find it interesting that in addition to simply responding to customer demand and feedback, when you’re a vertically-integrated company, actual jobs are created from new size additions. In this case, for the XL women who will model them, industrial workers that make them, retail employees that sell them and beyond. That’s the amazing reality of American Apparel’s business.

Though I could spend hours responding to your accusations and assumptions, this isn’t the appropriate forum for that, so I will only briefly address a few issues here. In regards to April Flores’ “that’s not our demographic” experience, I don’t recall the name of the confused employee credited with saying that, but he or she was sadly uninformed, and our company certainly does not endorse their statement. For as long as I can remember, we have offered sizes up to 3XL in our basic styles, and as far as adding larger sizes to the rest of our line is concerned, if there is the demand and manufacturing power to support it, we’re always game. There are thousands of brands in the market who have no intention of supporting natural - and completely normal - full-figured women, and American Apparel is making a conscious effort to change that, both with our models and our line. If every brand that tried to do this was met with such negative press, we may have to wait another decade for the mainstream to embrace something so simple.

In the past, American Apparel has been targeted for various reasons, many times by journalists who weren’t willing to go the extra mile to even visit the factory or meet the people in charge. Dov is a great executive director and American Industrialist, but there are hundreds of other decision-makers in our company, over half of whom are women. I suppose you have read a few too many negative pieces about us that have helped to form your opinion of who we are and what we stand for, and perhaps this has clouded your ability to give us a chance. I get it. I read some of it too. As a creative who isn’t always the most tactful and tends to stay away from the limelight, maybe I haven’t spoken up as much as I should have over the past 8 years that I’ve worked at American Apparel. Perhaps I could have shed some light on some issues that have been left cloudy over the years. However, sensational media will always need something to latch on to and success, spandex and individuality (and mutton chops circa 2004) are certainly easy targets. And who knows - maybe the PR ups and downs are all part of our DNA as a company. What I do know is that after all the years I have been working for this company I can wholeheartedly say that American Apparel is an amazing and inspiring place to work. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can represent of a ton of people I know when I say that we really like Dov and we passionately believe in his vision for a beautiful factory with sustainable practices. We are the largest sewing factory in North America, after all…10,000 jobs is nothing to sniff at. A lot of people would be very sad if this company wasn’t around.

That said, we realize that we are in no way perfect and that we’re still learning. We want to do better or differently in many areas, and we are actively working on them every day. You’re literally witnessing a transparent, sincere, innovative, creative company go through puberty in the spotlight of modern media. It’s not easy!

Oh - and regarding winning the contest, while you were clearly the popular choice, we have decided to award the prizes to other contestants that we feel truly exemplify the idea of beauty inside and out, and whom we will be proud to have representing our company.

Please feel free to contact me directly anytime. If you want to know the real scoop about our company before writing a story, I’ve got it (or if I don’t, I can put you in touch with the person that does!).

Best of luck,

Iris Alonzo
Creative Director
American Apparel

PS: You suck.

F'd Ad Fridays: Offensive salon campaign confuses ads with art

Progressive ad professionals are faced with some real conflicts. On the one hand, we want to be socially responsible contributors to a society of equal rights and respect for all. On the other hand, as part of the creative class, we despise censorship of artistic expression.

So when this months-old campaign from Edmonton suddenly exploded on the ad blogosphere this week as a Copyranter post, it caused quite a bit of anxiety:

The ad appears to make the joke that even though this woman is in an abusive relationship with a man who both beats her and gives her expensive gifts, at least she has a stylish hairdo.

Quite predictably, it caused outrage. How could anyone be so insensitive to such a horrible problem?

The advertiser, however, instead of taking the usual about-face, actually defended the approach:

Store owner Sarah Cameron said the point of the ads was to spark controversy, but they were never meant to target or attack anyone.

“It might strike a chord, but as the way our society and community is getting, we keep tailoring everything because everyone is getting so sensitive,” said Cameron.

“Anyone who has a connection or a story behind anything can be upset or have an opinion. We are not trying to attack anyone.”

Adland provided some context by showing the complete campaign:

Look good even when being frightfully blue collar.

Look good even when turning tricks in an alley.

Look good even when having to deal with icky old people.

Look good even with road rash.

Look good even when... WTF?

The salon accuses detractors of not appreciating the ads' artistic merit:

“We wanted to push limits,” said Cameron.

“You see the picture, you think it’s a nice photo and then you see the controversy.”

“We just like art, and it’s also objective.”

I think she meant subjective. And that's where I see that cognitive dissonance coming into play.

If confronted with this project as a photo essay, and told that someone wanted to stop it from being exhibited, I would probably defend it. Yeah, really. It's disturbing and upsetting and offensive, but that's part of what "art" is supposed to do. Like Mariel Clayton's psychopathic cannibal Barbie work. Art is supposed to make us think and feel things, sometimes awful things.

But this is advertising, and that is the problem. Advertising is not art, no matter how hard we try to claim it is. Advertising is a commercial message designed to promote a brand. And it doesn't have the same protections that "real" art does, because it is bounded by other regulations and expectations.

If unbranded, this photo essay would make a social statement about the superficiality of a looks-obsessed culture that's falling apart. As an ad campaign, it is sleazy and misjudged because it is cynically selling the very looks-obsessed culture the photos would otherwise be critiquing. The headline transforms it from provocative statement to tasteless joke.

What a confusing world we live in.

"Good Catholics Use Condoms" ads blocked in Spain

Jezebel reports that this ad campaign, slated to run on Madrid's transit system during Catholic World Youth Day, was banned by either city authorities or by the media company (they're not yet sure which):

Catholics for Choice are a group who want to encourage sexual and reproductive choices — including open sexuality, contraception, abortion and IVF — within Catholicism.

While the Pope has taken a somewhat surprising harm reduction stance on AIDS and condom use, there is obviously a great deal of gap between CFC's goals and the Vatican's hard line on sexual issues.

Nonetheless, CFC have been at it since 1973, and continue to strive for a world "where all women and men are trusted to make moral decisions about their lives."

The Spanish language version follows.